My initial reaction is: what is the letter's author actually arguing here? A charitable reading would have the conclusion as something like "the Obama administration ended a recession that was started by Republican policies." But on this interpretation, the letter provides no defense for the claim.
I'm on the fence with Obama. But I doubt anyone right now would say that the decisions Obama made effectively ended the recession and "stabilized our economy." We're treading water right now, and it's far from clear that our economy is stable. And there's no way of knowing right now whether the actions of the Obama administration were the primary motivation for the end of the recession, or if it was simply a product of normal economic ebb-and-flow. In other words, we don't know if the recession ended because of the Obama administration or simply during the Obama administration. (Obviously it happened during, but that does not entail a causal link. The vacuum cleaner could break while I'm using it, but that does not entail that it broke because I was using it).
As for the individual claims made in the letter, I don't think they're substantiated at all. Consider the following:
After 12 years of Republican rule
Republicans were only in office for 8 years before Obama. Bush served 2 terms and before his was Clinton, a democrat.
saved or created more than three million jobs
I don't know where the author gets this number, but job creation figures are notoriously sticky. To be clear, there aren't 3 million more jobs nationwide that there were when Obama took office. And job creation isn't really the number we're interested in anyway, it's job growth. I make money every day, but I also spend it. If I just focused on what I was making, I'd be hosed.
In early 2009, the nation sat on the edge of the abyss of a brutal recession because of Bush administration incorrect financial policies , tax cuts for the top 2 percent and a war in Iraq.
This sentence has problems far beyond the poor wording. While these may have been some contributing factors, this is hardly an exhaustive or comprehensive list. What about the housing bubble? What about the poor bank and creditor regulations? These were far more significant that "incorrect financial decisions." And many of the regulations under question were, if I'm not mistaken, developed during the Clinton era.
As for the 2 percent tax cuts, that's just ludicrous. Congress just voted to extend these tax cuts. And while it was a reluctant Democratic party who chipped in the needed votes, they were not reluctant because they felt that the tax cuts contributed to the recession.
charted a course for the full recovery of our financial system
We have no idea where the course we are on will take us. Yes, the economy has stopped tanking and job growth has been steadily rising. But we're no where near the growth we have historically seen and needed (apx. 2.5 percent) and even farther from the 5 percent growth we typically see after an economic downturn.
However, since this plan entails more than 18 months to complete, and the uninformed in this country continue to get their news from the right-wing propaganda machine, Fox News, we will continue to cower from progressive ideas to our ultimate detriment.
This whole sentence is a non sequitur. Not only that, it seems to suggest, by "out ultimate detriment," that we are somehow doomed. I get the impression that things aren't looking great when I read this sentence. But if the course to financial stability has already been charted, what exactly is the author worried about?
So, in short: yet another example of someone who doesn't understand the whole picture trying to have an opinion. I'm not claiming I understand it, but that's why I don't write letters to the editor.
